Thursday, March 16, 2017

'You Smack' President Donald Trump ‘And God Smacks You Right Back’

Right Wing Watch ^ | | March 15, 2017 3:15 pm | By Kyle Mantyla 

Pastor Rick Joyner posted a video on his Facebook page today asserting that Rachel Maddow’s story about Donald Trump’s tax returns last night was a bust because God is protecting the president and will defeat anyone who tries to attack him.

“When will they learn?” Joyner asked. “Anybody just doing a cursory view of what’s been going on in relation to Donald Trump should have learned [that] everyone who has attacked him has lost.”

Joyner said that despite her intention, Maddow’s report “made Trump look good” because the president “is like the Cyrus of Isaiah 45” and is being protected by God.

“There seems to be that kind of favor of God on Donald Trump,” Joyner said. “You smack him and God smacks you back.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Maddow Mistake


Alan Dershowitz Schools Van Jones on Constitutionality of Travel Ban ^ | 3/16/2017 | Nicholas Fondacaro 

Late Wednesday evening, news broke that another liberal judge had put a temporary hold on the implementation of President Donald Trump’s travel ban. And during CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, commentator Van Jones voiced his approval. “An action can be ruled unconstitutional if it's on the face of it, it looks like it's a good thing but there's an intent that's unconstitutional,” he argued, “There's a discriminatory intent here. And the discriminatory intent of the Trump administration is clear.”
According to Jones, the reason the travel ban is discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional, is because during the election Trump announced he wanted a Muslim ban. “Donald Trump has said a gazillion and 50 times, I counted, that he wants a Muslim ban,” Jones joked, drawing laughter from the rest of the panel, both left and right-wingers.
But Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz (who disagrees with Trump on the travel ban) found a major conflict in reasoning if the Supreme Court ruled on Trump’s intent as Jones framed it. “If it does, it will have to decide that words in an order can be constitutional when issue by Barack Obama but the very same words unconstitutional when issued by Donald Trump. That makes it very, very personal,” he explained.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

When Obama Compared Slaves to Immigrants, He Got Applause; Carson Gets Called 'Uncle Tom' ^ | March 16, 2017 | Larry Elder 

Dr. Ben Carson, in a speech before employees of Housing and Urban Development, the department he now runs, likened slaves to "immigrants": "That's what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder, for less. But they, too, had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."
Carson got hammered.
Late-night comic Trevor Noah said: "It makes them sound like they work at Wal-Mart. ... Calling slaves 'immigrants' is like saying: 'It's not kidnapping. That person just got a free vacation in a basement.' ... Slaves weren't immigrants. Because an immigrant has choice. They choose the country they're going to because they hope it will bring them a better life. Saying that slaves are just another group of immigrants erases how black people were uniquely oppressed in America. It helps justify blaming African-Americans for their hardships."
Actor Samuel L. Jackson tweeted: "OK!! Ben Carson ... I can't! Immigrants? In the bottom of SLAVE SHIPS??!! MUTHAF---- PLEASE!!! #d---headedtom."
Actress Whoopi Goldberg said: "Were the slaves really thinking about the American dream? No, because they were thinking, 'What the hell just happened?!' You know, when people immigrate, they come with the idea that they're going someplace for a better life. ... It's voluntary. ... How does he miss what slavery is?! How does he miss that no slave came to this country willingly? ... Ben, 'Roots.' Watch 'Roots.'"
TV personality Star Jones tweeted: "No way in the world he is that friggin ignorant." Using the pile-of-excrement emoji, she called the renowned neurosurgeon "(expletive) for brains." She ended the tweet: "#UncleTom thy name is #BenCarson."
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., insists that Carson's "slave equals immigrant" perspective means he is unqualified to lead HUD because Carson "doesn't know how urgent it is to confront racism" in housing: "It's disturbing to me, and it should be to every American, not just black Americans. ... For him, the HUD secretary, to have a stunning misunderstanding of history like that, is really, really striking. ... And so for the HUD secretary not to get that means that he doesn't know how urgent it is to confront racism and discrimination in housing, which is a very scary thing for the HUD secretary to not understand."
Following the uproar, Carson posted this clarification on Facebook: "The slave narrative and immigrant narrative are two entirely different experiences. ... The two experiences should never be intertwined, nor forgotten, as we demand the necessary progress towards an America that's inclusive and provides access to equal opportunity for all."
One slight problem.
The "insensitive" and "demeaning" slave-equals-immigrant argument was made on a number of occasions by President Barack Obama: "It wasn't always easy for new immigrants," Obama said at a 2015 naturalization ceremony for new citizens. "Certainly it wasn't easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily, and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves. There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more."
Even "Daily Show" host Noah admitted, "President Obama said something similar in 2015." But, said Noah, "You could tell before (Obama) said that part he was thinking, 'Damn, my speechwriter f---ed up.'"
In fact, according to the Federalist, Obama likened slaves to immigrants on 11 different occasions. "Whether our ancestors landed on Ellis Island," said Obama, "or came here on a slave ship or crossed the Rio Grande, we are all connected to one another. We rise and fall together."
Goldberg, Noah, Jackson and Ellison were obviously occupied the 11 times Obama showed he "doesn't know how urgent it is to confront racism."
Why the silence over Obama's many slave-equals-immigrant comments versus the desk pounding by the same critics when Carson says the same thing? Carson represents an existential threat to the left. He is deadly to their cause -- a black man, raised in poverty by a hardworking, welfare-abstaining single mom who taught her children to embrace hard work and education. The left believes that blacks are perpetual victims of slavery, Jim Crow and racism. It is vital for the existence of the Democratic Party to convince blacks to vote like victims in need of protection from the racist, sexist retrogrades known as Republicans. So black conservatives like Carson, who argues that welfare creates dependency, who demands choice in K-12 education and who believes hard work wins, must be attacked, marginalized and dismissed as "against their own people."

Obama spent a record $36 million fighting information requests!

Canada Free Press ^ | 03/16/17 | Matthew Vadum 

This was from "the most transparent administration in history"?

Obama spent a record $36 million fighting information requests!

The Obama administration blew a record $36.2 million in taxpayer funds on legal costs in its final year fighting requests for federal records under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA), according to an analysis by a media outlet unnamed here that is known to freak out and threaten lawsuits when its material appears in other media.

The litigation study was conducted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Trump Seeks to Slash U.S. Funding for UN by Over Half

The New American ^ | 16 March 2017 | Alex Newman

Meeting this week at the annual "World Government Summit" in the United Arab Emirates, under the shadow of a replica monument from the false god Baal's temple, top globalists and establishment leaders from around the planet offered a series of stunning revelations about their agenda. From the socialist new UN secretary-general and the embattled boss of the International Monetary Fund to national government leaders and tax-funded crony capitalists, over a hundred prominent speakers lectured thousands of attendees on the supposed necessity of globalism, multiculturalism, statism, Big Government, social engineering, "sustainability," and more. One speaker, tax-funded billionaire Elon Musk, even claimed humans must merge with machines and governments must give everyone an income.
Despite the array of high-profile speakers, the controversial gathering itself, organized by the Islamic rulers of the UAE and their partners, received very little attention from the U.S. media. Ironically, some major U.S. media organs such as the leftist CNN, dubbed "fake news" by U.S. President Donald Trump, were listed among the World Government Summit's partners. Sky News was also on the list. Other listed partners included the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the World Economic Summit, and other key globalist organizations. Many of the leaders of those outfits actually spoke openly at the summit promoting globalism, Big Government, statism, and other ideas at odds with traditional American liberties, Judeo-Christian values, and the U.S. Constitution.
The overarching agenda of the summit was on display clearly for all to see. Globalist bigwig Klaus Schwab, for example, the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum in Davos, told attendees that governments should promote his vision of globalism and a global regulatory regime to deal with real and imagined problems. "We have to unite our national and global efforts to overcome the challenges of nuclear energy and climate change that threaten humanity, we need to promote national identity and global citizenship," he declared. "The role of governments in shaping the future of their citizens has never been as important as it is today." Whether governments should be shaping the future of their citizens in the first place was never discussed.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a Socialist Party politician and bureaucrat, similarly promoted statism and globalism in his keynote speech. Specifically, he argued that national independence was a relic of the past, while lamenting the fact that people no longer trust their rulers and the globalist organizations they established. "In a world in which everything is global, in which the problems are global — from climate change to the movement of people — there is no way countries can do it by themselves," said Guterres, who helped spread socialism and engineer the tsunami of Islamic immigration into the West before taking his current post. "We need global responses, and global responses need multilateral institutions able to play their role."
Without explicitly saying it, the new UN boss also promoted the globalist effort to further empower Third World regimes in "global governance," at the expense of the U.S. government and other traditional power-brokers. "There is a need also for deep reforms in global institutions," he said, using the same "multi-polar" world order rhetoric that has become commonplace among dictators and even Western globalists. "Reforms that have to do with power relations, namely in the case of the Security Council, or the way votes are distributed in international financial institutions." Of course, making the "global governance" regime more accountable to oppressive Third World regimes such as Communist China and its allies has been a key effort of the totalitarian Socialist International that Guterres led prior to taking his current job. The SI has previously called for "world government" and global tyranny.
Globalism and its new apparent cheerleader in chief, mass-murdering Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, were hot topics, too, according to reports about the summit. "Many of the conversations that took place during the Summit revealed the days of multilateralism are not over," explained Noa Gafni Slaney in a blog post about the confab for the far-left Huffington Post, with the term "multilateralism" being synonymous with globalism. "Xi Jinping’s speech at Davos was frequently mentioned as an example of a commitment to globalization and global citizenship."
Indeed, as globalism continues to march forward despite growing global resistance, the mask is increasingly coming off and the links to brutal totalitarianism are becoming clear. And one of the leading characters behind the process, Chinese tyrant Xi, has offered a great deal of insight into where this will all be going if humanity does not resist. Just last month, Xi emerged as the new king of globalism following his bizarre keynote speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "Globalism certainly creates some problems that we all need to solve together," the dictator told fawning Western globalists. "But what should really scare us is any [leader] not willing to live up to the challenge."
But long before that revealing speech, Xi and the murderous Communist Chinese Party he leads have for years been openly promoting what they and their Western allies — George Soros, Henry Kissinger, and David Rockefeller among them — refer to as the "New World Order." If official statements and declarations by Beijing and its totalitarian-minded allies are an accurate indicator, the new order they are working to impose on humanity involves a newly empowered UN ruling over humanity. The UN General Assembly will serve as what the Chinese dictatorship and other totalitarian regimes called an "emblem of global sovereignty" in a recent declaration about their "New World Order."
Numerous other personalities tied to governments and international institutions spoke at the World Government Summit as well. Bizarrely, perhaps, considering the location and her background with the mass-murdering Bulgarian Communist Party that ruthlessly persecuted Muslims, scandal-plagued UNESCO chief Irina Bokova spoke at the confab as well. A number of current and former communist operatives, including Chinese Communists, also spoke at the summit. So did UN Development Programme boss Helen Clark of New Zealand. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, meanwhile, whose government enforces an incredibly strict immigration policy, touted a world that was becoming "more culturally diverse." He called on governments to "use this diversity as a pillar to enable economic growth based on innovation," whatever that means.
Outside of government and tax-funded globalist international organizations, a number of allegedly "private sector" representatives also attended the World Government Summit. They pushed the same globalist agenda, but with some additional — and potentially terrifying — new twists. Billionaire businessman Elon Musk, for example, a self-styled entrepreneur who has been criticized for relying so heavily on government subsidies to fund his various schemes, pushed forward a number of important establishment talking points. Among other elements, he advocated the transformation of human beings into cyborgs, as well as a globalist scheme to have governments radically increase people's dependence on government by providing a "universal basic income" to everyone on the planet.
According to Musk, big changes are coming in the economy, and so, many people will be unemployed in the future. As such, government must rescue them by providing for everyone a "universal basic income," basically a technocrat's dream pushed for years by establishment globalists. "I don't think we're going to have a choice," explained the tax-subsidized businessman involved in electric cars and space exploration. "I think it's going to be necessary. There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better.... I think universal basic income will be necessary, but the much harder challenge is: How will people then have meaning?"
Perhaps the new waves of unemployed can find meaning to their lives by merging their brains with computers, literally, Musk suggested. "I do think there is a path to having some sort of merger of biological intelligence and machine intelligence," Musk was quoted as saying. "It's mostly about the bandwidth, the speed of the connection between your brain and the digital version of yourself, particularly output. Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem." Those who refuse may become irrelevant.
Another speaker at the summit whose work is funded by taxpayers and is closely tied to government was National Geographic Fellow Dan Buettner, the man behind the controversial "Blue Zones Project." As The New American reported in 2015, the scheme pushes government-backed social engineering under the guise of promoting healthy living and longer lives. According to a news report published in Emirati media, Buettner told attendees about his research into longevity around the world, offering tips for how to live a longer life based on his studies of populations with long lives. In the United States, his "Blue Zones Project" continues expanding into communities and school districts, stirring controversy along the way.
Perhaps most bizarrely, the 2017 World Government Summit in Dubai was held under the shadow of a "replica of a Roman arch that once stood in front of the pagan Temple of Ba’al," reported Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz with Breaking Israel News. The New York Post described the structure as "the Arch of the Temple of Bel." Ba'al, of course, is the false god mentioned in numerous instances throughout the Bible. According to multiple reports, the original arch stood for 2,000 years at the Temple of Ba'al, sometimes spelled Bel or Baal, in Palmyra within present day Syria, a city known in the Bible as Tadmor.
Originally built as a temple to the idol Ba'al, who reportedly demanded child sacrifices and other horrors that outraged the God of the Bible, the ancient structure was used for various purposes throughout history until it was destroyed by ISIS in 2015. At that point, a replica was made by the Institute for Digital Archaeology, which plans to help erect 1,000 such arches around the world. The first replica was displayed prominently at the World Government Summit this week, sparking much speculation by religious scholars about its potential significance.
Despite the growing public revolt against globalism and statism across the West — most recently seen in Brexit and Trump's election — the globalist establishment clearly has no plans to let up or even slow down, as evidenced by the speeches offered at the World Government Summit this week by top peddlers of global governance. If liberty and self-government are to survive and thrive, then, the agenda for technocratic planetary rule must be exposed and halted as quickly as possible. But with globalists increasingly dropping the mask when it comes to their true intentions, the time to do that has never been better.
Related articles:
New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist
In Davos, Globalists Hail Leadership of Communist Chinese Tyrant
UN Agenda 2030: A Recipe for Global Socialism
Swiss Voters Reject Giant Tax-funded Handouts for All
U.S. Communities Targeted for "Blue Zone" Social Engineering
World Rulers Seek to End U.S. Veto at UN
IMF May Move From D.C. to Beijing, Chief Says
United Nations Exploits Pseudo-"Human Rights" to Attack U.S.
#Brexit to #Amexit: Keep the Momentum Going!
U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence
The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government
Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN Introduced in New Congress

Bill Clinton: Secrets of His Mistress ('Charity' Foundation Gave $2 Million to Energizer Bunny)

Natl Enquirer ^ | May 15 2017 ast | staff report 

Bill Clinton and his womanizing ways have provided another blow to the shaky presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton — as other newspapers finally pick up The ENQUIRER's bombshell exclusive on how his charity foundation gave $2 million to his reported mistress! Insiders told The ENQUIRER that blonde beauty Julie Tauber McMahon has been an "on-and-off mistress" to the former Prez for over a decade.
Julie (pictured) has denied a romantic relationship with the former Horndog-in-Chief — but a relative who passed a polygraph test spoke to The ENQUIRER in 2011. “It became a running joke in the family,” the source said. “If Clinton traveled to London, we’d learn Julie was also visiting London. When Clinton went to France, we’d discover Julie was also in France.”
The couple reportedly would regularly sneake into each other’s homes for trysts, with the two living just five miles apart in Chappaqua, N.Y. The source said: “They even slept in Hillary’s bed!"
But the sleazy sexual antics became a lot more questionable after The ENQUIRER discovered that the Clinton Global Initiative charity had given a $2 million "Green Grant" to Nebraska-based Energy Pioneer Solutions — where Julie serves as an executive officer and director!
The ENQUIRER discovered the grant buried in an official document released by Bill's foundation in 2010 about a "Special Session on Recovery in Haiti." Now reporters at "The Wall Street Journal" have picked up on The ENQUIRER's scoop to add more heat to Hillary's troubled race to the White House!
This isn't the first time Clinton's foundation has come under fire. Earlier reports had questioned why the starstruck Clinton Foundation seemed obsessed with catering to celebrities — with the foundation even buying a first-class ticket for actress Natalie Portman as a "special guest" who brought along her dog to attend an event!
There are also federal laws designed to prevent a nonprofit like the Clinton Foundation from acting in any individual's private interest.
Insiders told The ENQUIRER that Bill first met Julie in 1998 through her father, Michigan millionaire Joel Tauber — then a top Democratic Party contributor and Clinton family friend. In a written statement to The ENQUIRER on March 3, 2011, Julie wrote: “My reply remains the same, we are friends and the allegations are false.”
The ENQUIRER visited Chappaqua in late July of that year, however, and discovered that Bill had taken “his girlfriend” to a local jewelry store and bought a bracelet for her.
Around the same time, another eyewitness spotted Bill dining with a “honey blonde” at local French bistro Le Jardin du Roi. “They even held hands at the table,” said the source. “I’d say he’s smitten pretty bad!”
This renewed attention to Bill's financial and personal relationship to Julie arrives at a particularly bad time, too — with the latest issue of The National ENQUIRER hitting newsstands with a bombshell exposé on how Hillary has used blackmail and intimidation to cover up the former President's multiple marital indiscretions!

Liberals Cannot Condemn Campus Rioters Because They Created Them!

The Federalist ^ | 3-15-17 | Mark A. Signorelli 

Dostoyevsky’s “The Demons,” one of the finest political novels ever written, tells the story of Stepan Verkhovensky: an amiable, if faintly ridiculous, scholar idling in the provinces of Russia. As a young man, Stepan flirted with the liberal ideas of his day, publishing an article in a “progressive journal” and aiding in a translation of the socialist Charles Fourier. He even grew convinced for a time that the government was watching him closely (and grows very annoyed to find out that they do not care the least bit about him). Evidently allured by the chicness of radical ideas, Stepan is nonetheless too frivolous and gentle a man to try to implement those ideas in the real world.
His son, Peter, is a different case altogether. Immediately upon returning to his hometown, he begins organizing some wannabe revolutionaries into a cell to carry out their seditious designs. The deeply sinister character of Peter is fully revealed when he plots the murder of Shatov, a former member of the group, who Peter fears may betray their identities. The significance of Dostoyevsky’s political parable is clear: however kind-hearted in its first intentions, leftist politics breeds dangerous sons.
What Dostoyevsky Teaches Us About Middlebury I thought of this novel over the weekend when I read Frank Bruni’s op-ed piece decrying the recent violent protest at Middlebury College. It is an article that sounds many of the same notes that conservatives have been sounding since this incident. He laments the “emotional coddling” and “intellectual impoverishment” on display at Middlebury. He warns that the fracas was “the fruit of a dangerous ideological conformity in too much of higher education.” He condemns the “policing of imperfect language, silencing of dissent and shaming of dissenters” all too prevalent on the university campus now.
Falling under the spell of this article, one could almost forget that the writers for the op-ed pages of the New York Times—where Mr. Bruni plies his trade—routinely employ the very same political rhetoric used by Middlebury’s protestors. “Racist, sexist, anti-gay”: that was the chant Middlebury’s budding Peter Verkhovensky’s hurled at Charles Murray.
But it could just as well serve as the minutes for most meetings of the Times editorial board. Those are the charges that the Times’ writers level at their political opponents all the time.
The Left Has Employed Angry Speech For a Long Time Bruni himself wrote an article after the defeat of the Indiana RFRA law in 2015, about the “religion-based bigotry” of those who still adhere to traditional Christian teaching concerning sexuality. He wrote another earlier that year, subtitled “Religious Liberty, Bigotry, and Gays,” in which he dismissed concerns over the increasing threats to religious liberty.
Charles Blow published an article two days after the election entitled “America Elects a Bigot,” then went on television to smear a black man who supported Trump as “part of the bigotry that is Donald Trump.” This same author actually wrote an article warning that we do not use the charge of racism enough.
Paul Krugman dismissed the notion that Trump voters were motivated by economic insecurity, chalking up their decision at the polls to straightforward “racial antagonism.”
And on and on. It’s not just the New York Times—smearing political opponents in this manner has been standard practice on the left for quite some time. Remember when George Bush was accused of being a racist, because he couldn’t stop a hurricane? Remember when Mitt Romney was accused of being a sexist because of his silly comment about binder full of women? Remember when a pizzeria in Indiana was nearly shut down after its proprietors were libeled as homophobic?
The effect of these charges is to de-legitimize the accused: to brand them as persons outside the respectable norms of society. The protestors at Middlebury simply took the logic implicit in such accusations and extended it one step further. If Murray is a racist—as many of their professors assured them he was—then why should he be accorded any platform to speak at their university? Don’t such people represent everything good liberals are supposed to deplore? If the administration at Middlebury was misguided enough to allow him on campus, why shouldn’t they instruct their elders in the proper treatment of such undesirables?
There is an unmistakable coherence to their line of reasoning. Measured against it, appeals to freedom of speech and inquiry can seem feeble and unconvincing. That is why it is becoming increasingly common for young leftists to brazenly espouse limits on these freedoms, in deference to their own political sensibilities.
The Left’s Indignant Rhetoric Makes Restraint Impossible But more than the logic of leftist politics, its emotional dynamic has contributed to the cultivation of campus violence. Identity politics, which is now more or less synonymous with progressivism, has its soul and substance in resentment. It thrives on the arousal of resentment, on the instigation of perpetual outrage. The sentiment it needs most of all is the readiness to be offended, so it cultivates this frame of mind relentlessly. It takes little knowledge of human nature to understand how prone young people are to being corrupted by such rhetoric, given their emotional propensity towards defiance. Once corrupted, their indignation can take on a life of its own. There is no controlling such a beast once it is let loose.
Bruni wants the protestors to be alight with resentment, but nonetheless to respect the decorum of civilized life. He never considers that resentment is, per se, an uncivilized attitude, one that inevitably brings about uncivilized behavior. He writes of the early stages of the protest: “(Murray) arrived on campus … to encounter hundreds of protestors intent on registering their disgust. Many jammed the auditorium where he was supposed to be interviewed … and stood with their backs to him. That much was fine, even commendable, but the protest didn’t stop there.”
Imagine how unacquainted with basic human psychology you must be to suppose that a pack of 20-year-olds—aroused against the presence of a branded villain, inflated with self-righteous disgust, and egged on by their professors to behave with flagrant incivility—would somehow magically take hold of their passions and stop there. If the students were taught that, thus far, the effects of resentment were “fine” and “commendable,” then who in the world can be surprised they would push a little bit further?
The Left Owns Their Rioters, Like It Or Not It speaks well of Bruni, and other leftists like him, that he is beginning to feel revulsion towards the growing extremism on our college campuses. But that doesn’t mean he and his colleagues do not share some responsibility for the rise of this phenomenon. Let’s not pretend these protests emerged out of nowhere. They are launched in the name of left-wing causes, and couched in standard left-wing rhetoric.
If the parents are now horrified at the fervor with which their children carry out their own movement—well, they are still the ones who enlisted them in that movement in the first place. Stepan, too, was appalled when he came to learn Peter’s real character. But he was still the scoundrel’s father.

Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Records on Airport Meeting Between Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch!

Cybercast News Service ^ | March 15, 2017 | 3:34 PM EDT | Michael W. Chapman 

The government watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking all records its has on the June 27, 2016 meeting between President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in her airplane, a meeting that occurred while the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, a potential national security crime.

The airplane meeting took place on the tarmac at the Phoenix Harbor International Airport, several days before Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI. Several months after the gathering, Lynch told the media that she “regretted” the meeting with Bill Clinton because “it did make people wonder, ‘Is it going to affect the investigation that’s going on?’”

“The infamous tarmac meeting between President Clinton and AG Lynch is a vivid example of why many Americans believe the Obama administration’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton was rigged,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a statement released today. “Now it will be up to Attorney General Sessions at the Trump Justice Department to finally shed some light on this subversion of justice.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Five Ninth Circuit Judges SayThree Panel Ruling In First Trump Executive Order Was Flat Wrong

U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit ^ | March 15, 2017 

Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35105 (Motions Panel–February 9, 2017) U.S. COURT OF APPEALS BYBEE, Circuit Judge, with whom KOZINSKI, CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from the denial of reconsideration en banc. I regret that we did not decide to reconsider this case en banc for the purpose of vacating the panel’s opinion. We have an obligation to correct our own errors, particularly when those errors so confound Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent that neither we nor our district courts will know what law to apply in the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Latino firms forget politics, seek prosperity building Trump's wall

AL DÍA News ^ | March 15, 2017 | Agencia EFE, Madrid 

More than 60 Hispanic companies, all interested in constructing the controversial wall that US President Donald Trump wants to build on the Mexican border, are putting aside political and patriotic concerns for the chance to make money and create jobs.

"Honestly, for us it is above all an infrastructure project and a way to create jobs, something we really need in New Mexico," Mario Burgos of the Burgos Group construction company told EFE, adding that his state has an unemployment rate of 6.7 percent, the country's highest.
Of Peruvian descent, Burgos said that if the family business takes part in a project that can award contracts worth $20 billion, that's not being anti-immigrant, it's just being practical.
Amadeo Saenz of the Texas firm J.D. Adams was of the same opinion. He said that though for the past eight years the company has been a cooperative owned by the employees, most of them Hispanic, when they decided to take part they didn't think about the "political aspects, just the economic ones."
This construction company based in Austin, Texas, which has laid highways and built bridges for a total of around $300 million in state and federal contracts, now sees the chance to take part in a giant infrastructure project.
The wall was one of the Trump's leading electoral promises and annoyed many in Mexico, which according to the president would have to pay for the entire construction as compensation for allowing criminals and rapists to come into the United States.
Saenz told EFE he understands the logistical difficulties of finishing a wall that already exists along some 354 miles of border in California, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Texas, in order to make it extend the entire 2,000 miles of border between Mexico and the US.
According to the US government, the wall, to be built in three stages, will be 30 feet (9 meters) high so no one can climb over it, must resist intentional damage, and will take at least 3 1/2 years to build, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which must also deal with purchasing and expropriating the land.
Ricardo Diaz of Halbert Construction, located in El Cajon near San Diego, California, said that his company has 38 employees with very different origins and opinions about Trump and the wall, but that does not stop them from being interested in the work.
"Someone has to do it, work is work and political affiliations don't matter," he said.
From the city of Luquillo, Puerto Rico, retired military engineer Patrick Balcazar told EFE that he is against the wall, and in his opinion it would be better to develop both sides of the border to stop the undocumented from emigrating.
But his company San Diego Project Management, with experience in design and development of large contracts, believes participation in the wall project would help alleviate the island's economic problems.
"There's no work in Puerto Rico, we're going through a depression and to keep up with my payroll I have to take advantage of whatever comes my way," he said.
Balcazar said that Puerto Rico could contribute cement and the ability of build prefabricated structures to be assembled on the construction site, though he admitted it will be "a fight between David and Goliath," because there are huge international companies also interested in the project.
In his opinion, it would be a paradox if the Mexican consortium Cemex, one of the leading producers of cement in the world and which has several plants in the United States, were to provide the material to build Trump's wall.

U.S. Senate REVERSED Major Obama Law. He’s Reportedly FURIOUS!

Tea Party ^ | 3/15/2017 | Angry Patriot Movement Staff 

Piece by piece President Trump is going to dismantle all of the unbalanced policies Obama put in place.

The Senate has now passed some legislation that will see a rule from the Obama administration reversed. As a result, states which are trying to stop unemployment benefits from going to drug users will have the power to do so returned to them. (via Washington Examiner)
The Obama law was closely repealed by a Senate vote of 51-48.
This rule had only allowed states to refuse unemployment benefits to people who were involved with the pipeline management or transportation industries, people who deal with firearms in their line of work, or people who undergo drug tests as part of their law.
This law punished people who are actually going to return to work, and forced states to let drug users abuse the system.
The Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatchg had this to say on the issue when on the Senate floor: “The final regulation defined the role of an occupation so narrowly that it basically makes it impossible for states to implement any meaningful drug-testing policy.” (via Congressional Record)
Now that this silly rule has been repealed, there is now scope for the Labor Department to redo the rules so states will actually benefit from this type of policy.
Democrats are worried that there are going to be too many hurdles put in place for people to receive unemployment benefits.
Though they are claiming that people legitimately looking for work are going to be effected, there’s just no evidence to support that. If these people are doing nothing wrong, then they will get what they are entitled to.
Welfare fraud is too big of an issue in our country to ignore. Tens of thousands of people on a daily basis defraud the system. This sees taxpayer money go to people who don’t need it and don’t deserve it. These people become lazy and do not push themselves to find new work, especially if they also abuse drugs.
We the People should not be forced to foot the bill for people so they can load up their stash and get high all day. This reversals in the first step in ensuring this will no longer happen.



Trump Ties to Russia


First Aid


Got Grabbed!




Sex Offenders




The way they were!




I understand!


A great shirt


Laughing Stock!




Two kinds!


Fat and whiny